PDA

View Full Version : is a commander responsible?



Zoooom
9th December 2004, 08:42 PM
hoi

i have a question i would like to put out there,

Is a commander responsible for his actions that resault in his officers being attacked or sabbed. and to what extent

here is an example that i will put a poll to

A player ranked say at 239 sabbs a player ranked at around 50k

the 50k player on being sabbed ask's the 239 player

" why did you sab me?" and a reply is "oh random sab thats all i was a bit bored".

ok the 50k player isnt going to be able to take a sab on the 239 rank are they?

however what about the officers and sub officers of the 239 player?

I think that if a commander reaps the benifits of officers, and the officers choose to be under that command then the officers are just as liable for action of the commander as he is.

so the question i put out is

If a commander makes an aggresive assult or sabotage on a player many times smaller than themselfs and uses a reason of random sabotage becasue they were bored. then what limit should the smaller player stop at?

Stan_Jerd
9th December 2004, 08:56 PM
I voted "Retaliation should have no limit" (by far the most popular atm :-p)

But Player 50k should remember every action has a reaction
(not always equal and oposite)

loldongs
9th December 2004, 09:35 PM
Is a commander responsible for his actions that resault in his officers being attacked or sabbed. and to what extent

I dont think so. Then again, it can go both ways. For instance, if a commander is stupid and sabs or farms some high ranked player, and gets sabbed back in retaliation, then the commander is at fault for anything else that happens. But, the retaliation should stop right there, unless it was the officer who originally got the commander to do whatever.

If an officer is stupid and attacks or sabs some higher ranked guy then he is at fault, no one else is. Unless the commander asked the officer to do so.

With my theories theres a lot of "ifs" and "buts".

Dragon_Orb
9th December 2004, 10:14 PM
It's my belief that the consquences of actions taken by a commander lay with the commander, not with his/her officers. Here's one example (and i don't claim that all cases are like this):

Say you become an officer of someone, and after a while your commander gets bored of KoC, so goes out on random sabs. Now, if you get retaliated against simply because your commander got bored how can that be justified... To be perfectly honest, i can't see any reason for it to be justified.

On the other side of the coin, i can see the reason of it if the commander acted at the request of the officer i can understand it happening but, from my experience ,this is the vast minority of cases. Hence my vote went for Retaliation limited to only the offender.

Anyways, that's just my opinions. Congrats if you understood that rant, because i can't anymore :p

Cheers!
Dragon

Zoooom
9th December 2004, 10:53 PM
Say you become an officer of someone, and after a while your commander gets bored of KoC, so goes out on random sabs. Now, if you get retaliated against simply because your commander got bored how can that be justified... To be perfectly honest, i can't see any reason for it to be justified.

Dragon

my justifycation would be that the officers gain advantage via clicks, protection, and sometimes gold from their commander so why should they not also take the disadvantages of the actions of the commander as well?

loldongs
9th December 2004, 11:00 PM
Because actions against the commander are just that, actions against the commander. The officer usually has nothing to do with whats happening to his commander, and in this game, when thousands of random people have random commanders, the officer is just that less connected with his/her officers. Only wars have actions against whole chains, like your suggesting. Unless a wars happening between two alliances or command chains, officers should be left out. I know I dont wont to be the innocent bystander that gets f'd over because my commander is stupid, i doubt many other people disagree with that. Unless of course they are partly responsible. There are a lot of unless's.

Zoooom
9th December 2004, 11:15 PM
i see your point mr stamos and valid it is .

i do also say that the officer is the inocent party, however why is it ok for the officer to reap rewards from his commander during the peace and sound decisions and then not have to pay the dues of war and bad decisions?

cannot then they go to their commander and arrange more sabs as their commander got them into this and is there to give them protection ?

there is one thing that would make me reconsider attacking the officer and that is if the officer cannot leave the commander due to to many changes? but how would the retaliator know that was the scenerio ?

maybe thats where diplomacy comes into the game and the officer could explain to the retaliator his / her reasonongs why the not be involved in the retrebution.

Dragon_Orb
10th December 2004, 12:56 AM
my justifycation would be that the officers gain advantage via clicks, protection, and sometimes gold from their commander so why should they not also take the disadvantages of the actions of the commander as well?In a war i can understand this, but when a commander goes awol, as in the example used here, then the commander usually has no contact with his/her officers, therefore giving them neither clicks, gold or protection (To be honest i've never been in this position myself, and can only comment on what i've talked with others about)


i do also say that the officer is the inocent party, however why is it ok for the officer to reap rewards from his commander during the peace and sound decisions and then not have to pay the dues of war and bad decisions?

cannot then they go to their commander and arrange more sabs as their commander got them into this and is there to give them protection ?I think that i've addressed this in what i've said above, if you disagree i'll come back to it :)


there is one thing that would make me reconsider attacking the officer and that is if the officer cannot leave the commander due to to many changes? but how would the retaliator know that was the scenerio ?

maybe thats where diplomacy comes into the game and the officer could explain to the retaliator his / her reasonongs why the not be involved in the retrebution.Unfortunately i've talked with several people in this position, and helped one or two of them out by stepping in myself and talking with the person who was retaliating against them due to their commanders' actions. The commander was basically just saying 'deal with it yourself' to their officer :mad: Thankfully the retaliation stopped after a bit of discussion :)

Cheers!
Dragon

Blitz
10th December 2004, 01:18 AM
For many reasons, I say "Limited to the offender." It's an ideal that can't always be lived up to, but in general, as well as in that particular case, it really is just perpetuating a negative cycle that does not address the root conflict.

Besides, too many pointless alliance wars start this way, and they far too often affect players who don't want to be involved, and didn't do anything themselves to involve themselves in the conflict. I've got no problem with alliances declaring war on each other for some fun, and to show off a bit, but don't go screwing up the game for players who aren't involved. ;) Especially since we're not talking about page 1 here, where it sometimes comes down to taking someone down a few notches for you to move up.

Zoooom
10th December 2004, 01:27 AM
so it really does depend on the position of the commander
If the commander is awal then its not right to take the officers down this would also cover the before mentioned if the officer was unanable to leave ther command.

i think having a poll was a silly idea on this in hidsight as there are alot of variables on one hand a commander can go rouge on his officers and then on another the officer has benifited in the past and taken the good so should also take the bad.

my thoughts now are maybe the lower ranked player that is looking to attack the officers could message them with an explination of what the comander has done, im sure they will soon find out where the officer stands and if its with the commander then my initial decision would still stand,

Dragon_Orb
10th December 2004, 01:51 AM
so it really does depend on the position of the commander
If the commander is awal then its not right to take the officers down this would also cover the before mentioned if the officer was unanable to leave ther command.

...

my thoughts now are maybe the lower ranked player that is looking to attack the officers could message them with an explination of what the comander has done, im sure they will soon find out where the officer stands and if its with the commander then my initial decision would still stand,I think that here is a good point, and one i can agree with. If the commander is awol, i think that most KoC players would be decent enough to leave the officers alone, if the officers PM them to let them know the situation. Though i also think that if the officer does stand with the commander, then i think it would be fair to take the officers standing into account as well. If they are high ranked, know how to play and do well, then sure, free game i believe. However, if the officer is low ranked and not that great of a player, then a once over would be all that is necessary. No need to take the fun out of the game completely for someone who's not experienced enough to deal with it :)


i think having a poll was a silly idea on this in hidsight as there are alot of variables on one hand a commander can go rouge on his officers and then on another the officer has benifited in the past and taken the good so should also take the bad.As they say, 'hindsight is 20/20' ;) Don't worry about it, it was a good idea and has brought about a good... debate i guess. A friendly debate :)

Cheers!
Dragon

Doubledutch
10th December 2004, 02:08 AM
First and foremost, The commander and his officers are supposed to be a team. They play together, they fight together, they protect each other and therefore also get retaliated together if needed.

Anyone who doesn't want to play this way shouldn't choose a commander.

You cannot ask for only the benifits and refuse the downside. the one comes with the other.

having said that, there might be situations where the officer does want to leave the commander because he thinks that his commander stinks! I such an officer doesn't attack or sab me himselve and explains the situation, I'll leave him alone.

The biggest part is to choose your victims carefully. That's where recon steps in. I will never attack a account without finding out the strength in attack, defence, spy and sentry.

Have fun

DD

Zoooom
10th December 2004, 02:12 AM
indeed so i am glad i posted as it will influence how i play the game in the future and has brought to surface some things i had not considered or been able to see past before.
something i am learning very quickly over the past few days is diplomacy plays abig part in the game no matter what rank or ability. I and again in hindsight i have done wrong to some players out there even if their actions were wrong to begin with another saying if i might 2 wrongs dont make a right. i certainly will curve the way i handle some players from now and let diplomacy play a much bigger part in the game, i did read a post about having meter that ajusted as to the rank and ability of players you attacked and sabbed with this having bearing on something like your tbg or weapon costcall it a karma meter or something to that effect interesting to see other opinions on this thread.



The biggest part is to choose your victims carefully. That's where recon steps in. I will never attack a account without finding out the strength in attack, defence, spy and sentry.


this is where the commander in a situation where his officers are on side makes a decision to put his officers in the firing line, there are so many soloutions to this question.

if we take it back to the original question this was asked in the assumption the officers had the choice of leaving, and if not then maybe its upto the officer thats being unfairly sabbed (and it is unfair to the officer) to message the sabber and state their case if not then they probably are on the commanders side and hence option a still applies.

Dragon_Orb
10th December 2004, 02:20 AM
I guess with a bit of hindsight myself after reading the points here, that i should have probably voted for 'Retaliation limited to officers the same rank and above', as with hindsight it seems to be closer to where i stand on the matter, but it's too late now...

Cheers!
Dragon

Bronan
10th December 2004, 07:17 AM
Well that is a very wise decision to start being more Diplomatic :)
This game of Chaos involves lots of politics even more then many know
I agree on the fact that some officers are under a commander and are unhappy with him.
So i would only pick on those worthy, not the weakest members.